>>27508043You didn't back yours up in any way other than "because this would look better, I know this because I'm a design major," which is the equivalent of "because I said so."
You bitched about the legs being inverted, when that's how bird legs work.
You bitched about the "linework" when the linework is clean and sharp. Maybe you don't like the "shape," but that's different, and also subjective nonsense when you called it a triangle.
You bitched about the wings when that's how bird wings work, and the tethered "fan" appendage
>>27506100 would be more awkward for lifting its bow arm.
You bitched about the hood covering its face, when it's an archer trying to shade its face. Also a nocturnal animal that has to function during the day, and camouflage itself in trees.
You bitched about the cloak being "disjointed" when virtually all plant features are "disjointed" on Pokemon, AND it's supposed to evoke clothing. It already has a layered cloak look with its hood and wings, if everything was tethered together into one piece of cloth it would be less flexible.
You bitched about the "steampunk" goggles that have nothing steampunk about them, and didn't really explain why they're bad. Spectacles work on both the owl and ranger levels of the design.
You bitched about the wing triangles being pointless when they're fucking arrows, then claimed arrows are superfluous to a fucking archer. You also claimed they're "busy" when they're just a small pattern on a mass of solid color.
As you can see, I've refuted all your idiotic complaints by appealing to either owl anatomy or the archer motif. Meanwhile, you've insisted that you're right because you're a design major, then refuse to post your own designs and wonder why people think you're full of shit, especially when you're spewing it.
And the post doesn't agree with
>>27508082, its refuting your claim that the cloak should be long and connected, because it's segmented, and your claim that the triangles serve no purpose.
